WikiLeaks

[AllNightDayDream]

julian assange won an award from the economist, justsayin

well fuckin deserved. I expect more to come, probably years from now.

who owns the economist...

The economist newspaper ltd....

[hackman]

julian assange won an award from the economist, justsayin

well fuckin deserved. I expect more to come, probably years from now.

who owns the economist...

The economist newspaper ltd....

ok act the goat if ya want

[AllNightDayDream]

oh and whenever a story gets pushed this hard i always wonder: whats the REAL story that they dont want people latching onto?

similar to The Sun having a story about Africanised Bees on the front page whereas the latest war-time casualty figures slip to page 19, between the d-list celebrity opening a supermarket and the crossword

Question, if the supreme illuminati powers or whatever have such a heavy influence why would they publish such a story at all?

[hackman]

why wouldn't you publish a story about africanised bees? jovial lil critters

[AllNightDayDream]

ok act the goat if ya want

The goat, like i'm being shepherded? clever

[hackman]

ok act the goat if ya want

The goat, like i'm being shepherded? clever

no i'm not that clever i'm afraid

you gave a silly answer to my silly question

[deadly_habit]

The publication belongs to The Economist Group, half of which is owned by the Financial Times, a subsidiary of Pearson PLC. A group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff and the Rothschild banking family of England,[8] owns the rest. A board of trustees formally appoints the editor, who cannot be removed without its permission. In addition, about two-thirds of the seventy-five staff journalists are based in London, despite the global emphasis.[9]

[hackman]

i realise it's a vague point, but it's just as vague as the point made about the rape accuser being cia related

see how confusing they make it all for us?

[noam]

oh and whenever a story gets pushed this hard i always wonder: whats the REAL story that they dont want people latching onto?

similar to The Sun having a story about Africanised Bees on the front page whereas the latest war-time casualty figures slip to page 19, between the d-list celebrity opening a supermarket and the crossword

Question, if the supreme illuminati powers or whatever have such a heavy influence why would they publish such a story at all?

you misunderstand me

im referring to the common diversionary tactic used by mass media outlets to deflect attention away from potentially agenda-harming stories, and onto stories which have little to no significance to anyone at all... most news concerns items in the latter.

its no conspiracy, its how news corporations work - they push news which sells; this means hiding or burying news which actually is interesting and relevant.

example: watch clips of the news from 1950... and watch clips of the news now. one gives you the news. the other gives you 'THE NEEEEEWWWWWWWSSSSSS' *doing jazz hands*

all i was sayin is it suits someone to push this story to bury another one

and Rothschilds own the Economist?!?! I TRUSTED THEMMMMMM!!! never read it in my life

[HRKRT]

rothschild has fingers in almost every pie.


that includes your mommas.

[noam]

see signature for response.

[AllNightDayDream]

oh and whenever a story gets pushed this hard i always wonder: whats the REAL story that they dont want people latching onto?

similar to The Sun having a story about Africanised Bees on the front page whereas the latest war-time casualty figures slip to page 19, between the d-list celebrity opening a supermarket and the crossword

Question, if the supreme illuminati powers or whatever have such a heavy influence why would they publish such a story at all?

you misunderstand me

im referring to the common diversionary tactic used by mass media outlets to deflect attention away from potentially agenda-harming stories, and onto stories which have little to no significance to anyone at all... most news concerns items in the latter.

its no conspiracy, its how news corporations work - they push news which sells; this means hiding or burying news which actually is interesting and relevant.

example: watch clips of the news from 1950... and watch clips of the news now. one gives you the news. the other gives you 'THE NEEEEEWWWWWWWSSSSSS' *doing jazz hands*

all i was sayin is it suits someone to push this story to bury another one

and Rothschilds own the Economist?!?! I TRUSTED THEMMMMMM!!! never read it in my life

I understand what you meant. I'm just wondering that if this conspiracy is so deep and far-reaching, why would they allow a damning story to be published at all? I mention this because the mechanism you're talking about mostly has to do with profits (as well as pleasing the status quo), as damaging topics don't sell well most of the time (or at least that's the perception).

[hackman]

BECAUSE IT'S A FALSE FLAG

[hackman]

tend to agree with this
http://empirestrikesblack.com/2010/12/w ... ng-family/

[pkay]

oh and whenever a story gets pushed this hard i always wonder: whats the REAL story that they dont want people latching onto?

that whether people believe it or not bribing government employees to acquire state secrets will get you executed in 90% of countries and no one should be surprised that he's getting hunted down like this.

whether people agree with the laws of various countries or not, paying government employees of a state to commit treason is a crime. He comitted a crime and is likely to answer for it in some shape form or fashion.

The majority of the information he released is somewhat sensitive but isn't exactly spy shit. If it was anything major he'd be dead.

[noam]

oh and whenever a story gets pushed this hard i always wonder: whats the REAL story that they dont want people latching onto?

similar to The Sun having a story about Africanised Bees on the front page whereas the latest war-time casualty figures slip to page 19, between the d-list celebrity opening a supermarket and the crossword

Question, if the supreme illuminati powers or whatever have such a heavy influence why would they publish such a story at all?

you misunderstand me

im referring to the common diversionary tactic used by mass media outlets to deflect attention away from potentially agenda-harming stories, and onto stories which have little to no significance to anyone at all... most news concerns items in the latter.

its no conspiracy, its how news corporations work - they push news which sells; this means hiding or burying news which actually is interesting and relevant.

example: watch clips of the news from 1950... and watch clips of the news now. one gives you the news. the other gives you 'THE NEEEEEWWWWWWWSSSSSS' *doing jazz hands*

all i was sayin is it suits someone to push this story to bury another one

and Rothschilds own the Economist?!?! I TRUSTED THEMMMMMM!!! never read it in my life

I understand what you meant. I'm just wondering that if this conspiracy is so deep and far-reaching, why would they allow a damning story to be published at all? I mention this because the mechanism you're talking about mostly has to do with profits (as well as pleasing the status quo), as damaging topics don't sell well most of the time (or at least that's the perception).

you misunderstand me by thinking im of the view that its a conspiracy, i'm much more inclined to believe its simply this

profits

as opposed to some very, very long winded master plan

theres some very tenuous links that hint at a conspiracy, but again, im not completely sure, and if you dont have to believe then you're not obligated to believe its true or not, yes?

in any case, wikileaks is flavour of the month for the moment, it passed by almost un-noticed for a long time before this and will disappear from peoples mouths very shortly, the only false flag is believing theres anything of value in the news story

[pkay]

also the major untold story is about the soldier they bought most of this information from and how he will likely either A) be executed or B) spend the rest of his life in leavenworth making small rocks out of large rocks.

As noble as he thinks what he's doing is, he condemned a man to death in order to create the meme of 2010

[AllNightDayDream]

oh and whenever a story gets pushed this hard i always wonder: whats the REAL story that they dont want people latching onto?

similar to The Sun having a story about Africanised Bees on the front page whereas the latest war-time casualty figures slip to page 19, between the d-list celebrity opening a supermarket and the crossword

Question, if the supreme illuminati powers or whatever have such a heavy influence why would they publish such a story at all?

you misunderstand me

im referring to the common diversionary tactic used by mass media outlets to deflect attention away from potentially agenda-harming stories, and onto stories which have little to no significance to anyone at all... most news concerns items in the latter.

its no conspiracy, its how news corporations work - they push news which sells; this means hiding or burying news which actually is interesting and relevant.

example: watch clips of the news from 1950... and watch clips of the news now. one gives you the news. the other gives you 'THE NEEEEEWWWWWWWSSSSSS' *doing jazz hands*

all i was sayin is it suits someone to push this story to bury another one

and Rothschilds own the Economist?!?! I TRUSTED THEMMMMMM!!! never read it in my life

I understand what you meant. I'm just wondering that if this conspiracy is so deep and far-reaching, why would they allow a damning story to be published at all? I mention this because the mechanism you're talking about mostly has to do with profits (as well as pleasing the status quo), as damaging topics don't sell well most of the time (or at least that's the perception).

you misunderstand me by thinking im of the view that its a conspiracy, i'm much more inclined to believe its simply this

profits

as opposed to some very, very long winded master plan

theres some very tenuous links that hint at a conspiracy, but again, im not completely sure, and if you dont have to believe then you're not inclined to believe its true or not, yes?

in any case, wikileaks is flavour of the month for the moment, it passed by almost un-noticed for a long time before this and will disappear from peoples mouths very shortly, the only false flag is believing theres anything of value in the news story

Eh idk, among political readers the iraq war diaries was a pretty big deal. I think there will be a point that we will see less headlines coming out of wikileaks but I don't see that until a few months into next year. They've only released a tiny fraction of all their documents. I think more than anything they'll come in and out of the limelight until someone decides to off assange (sadly).

haha yeah I wouldn't really lump you with all the conspiracy heads around here, anyone who's familiar with chomsky has more sense than that. I agree with most what you've said.

[deadly_habit]

also the major untold story is about the soldier they bought most of this information from and how he will likely either A) be executed or B) spend the rest of his life in leavenworth making small rocks out of large rocks.

As noble as he thinks what he's doing is, he condemned a man to death in order to create the meme of 2010

[AllNightDayDream]

also the major untold story is about the soldier they bought most of this information from and how he will likely either A) be executed or B) spend the rest of his life in leavenworth making small rocks out of large rocks.

As noble as he thinks what he's doing is, he condemned a man to death in order to create the meme of 2010

It's truly a sad tale, but TBH he done goofd spilling his guts out about it.